Staff Complete
- Thread starter DiehardPanther
- Start date
On paper this staff looks very good. Great experience, some youth, some diversity and they look eager to recruit. It has been a work in progress but things look very promising and exciting. Hopefully, especially on defense, we start to see the makings on a great defensive that Narduzzi has been preaching and great recruiting.
Good that Charlie Partridge was promoted to assistant HC.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Awesome.
Narduzzi just 'gets it'. Knows we need top recruiters (OK, 100 K per recruit too I guess)... but with the new hires it is obvious that he is focusing on recruiting, and promoting Partridge shows that as well.
We didn't get any top recruiters...
Very good compared to which programs?
Pat Narduzzi was considered MSU's top recruiter.
Charlie Partridge was considered the top recruiter for UW and Pitt.
Tim Salem and Rob Harley look like plus recruiters.
Archie Collins and Cory Sanders both were regarded as good recruiters for their respective schools.
Your comment looks like you were expecting Pitt to poach someone from SEC or another ACC team. That's not realistic especially with the 10th coach being added this year.
This staff has a good mix of experience and youth. It's probably a better mix than Pat's original staff. I'm not the least bit concerned about their recruiting going forward but you need the next 2 seasons to be more successful.
Charlie Partridge was considered the top recruiter for UW and Pitt.
Tim Salem and Rob Harley look like plus recruiters.
Archie Collins and Cory Sanders both were regarded as good recruiters for their respective schools.
Your comment looks like you were expecting Pitt to poach someone from SEC or another ACC team. That's not realistic especially with the 10th coach being added this year.
This staff has a good mix of experience and youth. It's probably a better mix than Pat's original staff. I'm not the least bit concerned about their recruiting going forward but you need the next 2 seasons to be more successful.
Last edited:
I knew it. Again it does not matter who Pitt signs, posters will go on the boards and make silly comments. Its nothing but a 10th coach. RIP, who were you expecting them to get, a head coach in waiting? Or maybe a headcoach from another school? You and some others act so sophmoric.
Well, those guys weren't adds and they haven't produced very good results thus far.
Neither of those guys are top recruiters. They are barely well regarded recruiters at the G5 level with little experience.
I expected the staff to get better. We got less experienced and non-in demand coaches at every spot. Borberly is the lone guy who is experienced and has a good resume for his position and he was passed over last year and this year for on field positions and he is not a good recruiter.
This isn't an issue of "no matter who we get" people will say something. We did not upgrade at any spot. We went cheap and with less experience. We didn't get top recruiters.
I find it much more of an issue that we have posters who say things like "Awesome. Narduzzi just 'gets it'." or "on paper the staff looks very good" when we clearly did not go out and get any upgrades on paper. We didn't add any top recruiters. It is entirely based on being a blind homer. It is being a blind homer for a coach/staff/program that hasn't come close to earning that faith on filed or in recruiting.
Very pleased with the staff. Good teachers who can recruit.
Excellent move to devote a coach to the safeties. Such an important position in the Duzz defense and those guys really need to be well coached.
Driven, personable, hungry, enthusiastic young coaches become good recruiters...
Go Pitt.
Driven, personable, hungry, enthusiastic young coaches become good recruiters...
Go Pitt.
No comparisons. I said IIIIIII like the staff make up. They are younger, I like where they come from and I feel they will be very able to relate to the recruits and players.
Just like with recruits, time will tell if coaches like Collins and Sanders were good additions. I like both guys.
I can live with Borberly if he can coach.
I think Bates is going to be a really good hire. They need a technician and a solid teacher. The defense has been really sloppy with poor tackling, bad angles, blown coverages... I wasn't much of a Conklin fan.
I can live with Borberly if he can coach.
I think Bates is going to be a really good hire. They need a technician and a solid teacher. The defense has been really sloppy with poor tackling, bad angles, blown coverages... I wasn't much of a Conklin fan.
I think we have a better staff then we did last year at this time. That’s a good thing.
There has to be a comparative. "Very good" is completely dependent on comparing against something else.
BTW, our staff got significantly older this year, save the 10th assistant. Collins is older than Hill. Bates is significantly older than Conklin. Borberly is significantly older than Peterson. Sanders is relatively young, but not especially young considering his 1 year of experience in D1 football. Lots of staffs have guys with several years of P5 experience who are younger. Hell, Oklahoma's HC is younger.
@joeydavid you stated the class would have been top 30 on rivals if they took a full 25 recruit class. You realize that is a terrible comparative, right?
We are tied ranked #36 on rivals. Of the 35 schools rated ahead of us, 29 of them took fewer than 25 in their classes. Of those, 5 (all ranked significantly higher) even took less than us and 3 teams ranked tied/immediately behind us also took less than 25 and 2 of those the same 20 as we did. Who are the 7 programs we jump? We also tied for #36 based on average stars.
We are tied ranked #36 on rivals. Of the 35 schools rated ahead of us, 29 of them took fewer than 25 in their classes. Of those, 5 (all ranked significantly higher) even took less than us and 3 teams ranked tied/immediately behind us also took less than 25 and 2 of those the same 20 as we did. Who are the 7 programs we jump? We also tied for #36 based on average stars.
I don't agree with Jpripper88's doom & gloom routine. But we all have different views and this forum is the place for discussion.
I will say this, he is correct that recruiting needs to improve. That is why retaining Partridge was key. His Florida ties are vital and it is also nice to have his consistency in tutelage of the young D linemen.
You would like me pick 5 prospects who would have moved Pitt into the top 30?
With the extra spots they probably continue to recruit and land Banks, Brents, etc.
It's not a stretch to think Pitt could have finished above ASU, WVU, NCSt, UL, KY, OSU and BU with a 25 person class. Do the math.
Add them to this class it's right in line with 2016 which finished at 29.
If you look at 247 composite the 2018 class has a slightly higher average per recruit ranking than 2016 but 2016 has 5 more recruits. Their final ranking in 2016 was 30th.
With the extra spots they probably continue to recruit and land Banks, Brents, etc.
It's not a stretch to think Pitt could have finished above ASU, WVU, NCSt, UL, KY, OSU and BU with a 25 person class. Do the math.
Add them to this class it's right in line with 2016 which finished at 29.
If you look at 247 composite the 2018 class has a slightly higher average per recruit ranking than 2016 but 2016 has 5 more recruits. Their final ranking in 2016 was 30th.
Agreed. Duzz came in with a reputation for being a high energy and successful recruiter. He started off with a bang securing a top30 class but the last 2 classes, especially this one, he has taken a step back and it is starting to resemble Paul Chryst recruiting. Our biggest recruiting wins last year were over Syracuse and Kentucky. When you go 5-7 and miss a bowl game it makes it a lot harder to recruit against winning programs. I expect it will improve with a winning season next year, especially if Kenny Pickett looks like the real deal. A lot easier to sell recruits on winning when you have a returning starter at QB with 2 years of eligibility.
But then you would have to allow all of those schools to get to 25, too, right? What about those schools behind us who also didn't take 25? Who in the top 30 drops out? UK is the only one you named.
Based on who were involved with, it is likely our options would have been very limited and been guys like Hallet, who would have done very little to boost the ranking.
The composite average rating of this year's class is .8584. The composite average rating of the 2016 class was .8563.
Roughly 50% of Paul Chris recruits fell outside of the top 1000 on the composite rating. Pat Narduzzi is under 30% in that same category. HCPC's recruits averaged just over an .8400 rating.
If the ratings hold true Pitt should have much deeper and talented team going forward.
Roughly 50% of Paul Chris recruits fell outside of the top 1000 on the composite rating. Pat Narduzzi is under 30% in that same category. HCPC's recruits averaged just over an .8400 rating.
If the ratings hold true Pitt should have much deeper and talented team going forward.
I am not doom and gloom. Vs. last year's staff we got much older and less experienced without getting proven top recruiters. The only coach we added who you could argue is more experienced and better on paper is Borberly and he is clearly a downgrade as a recruiter and was passed over for 2 years for an on field role, even this year with the expansion of staffs. It isn't doom and gloom to present the facts.
I think HCPN is the best shot we have at being a legitimate contender, but I'm not going have blind faith and ignore rational data and the facts in front of us. The recruiting HAS to improve for us to have any chance to contend in the ACC. Even then, we are still hoping our coaching is much better than our competition and that is certainly an unproven position.
1. Why are you comparing to the poor recruiting under Chryst?
2. Neither class was good enough to compete for the ACC.
3. Comparing to 2016 avg doesn't work because we are talking about a comparison to our peers. If you rank by that average we would "jump" 4 teams from #46, but get "jumped" by another ranked below us in 2018. We'd end up #43. In 2016 we wouldn't have "jumped" anyone from #30, and would have been "jumped" by 3 to end up #33.
Last edited:
There is no way to twist the data that doesn't show this staff as being average recruiters. There are 65 P5 teams. Every year they have been here (I won't count the transition class of 2015 against them) they have had a recruiting ranking in the high 20s-mid 30s. That is exactly average. That is good enough if your goal is to go to the Pinstripe and Sun Bowl. It isn't going to win you the ACC ever.
Even worse if you go by composite and then compare to their competition in the ACC. This year 46th in the country, 8th in the ACC, and 4th in our division. In 2017, 37th in the country, 7th in the ACC, and 4th in our division. In 2016, 30th in the country, 4th in the ACC, and 2nd in our division. If we went by averages (because people want to harp on the 25 man class) we would have been "jumped" by two in conference and in division teams in 2016 and not "jumped" anyone in any other years.
So, like you said, we would be (at best) average and yearly around the 4th most talented team in our own division. On top of that, the other HCs (and staffs) ahead of us are all more accomplished, so if the hope is our coaching is much, much better and will make up that gap, you don't have much to hang your hat on.
First of all, Borbely and Bates are not inexperienced. Second, you keep talking about proven recruiters, but Hill was hardly a proven recruiter before or during his time here. Peterson did a good job recruiting, but his unit didn't show enough improvement on the field. Third, you are scraping for reasons to be negative with the age thing.
The best move of the offseason recruiting wise was to retain Partridge. Maintaining some tenure and consistency is vital to a relationship driven process. Having him continue to mine FL is IMO carries far more weight than any effect from the other changes.
Bates is inexperienced for his position. He has never been a P5 DC. He was a G5 DC for 1 season more than a decade ago. Borberly is not, but he is not known as a good recruiter and he has been passed over twice for on field positions. I have no problem with the Borberly hire, but we most definitely take a hit in recruiting and Borberly is a guy who was certainly not in demand by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, say Hill isn't a proven recruiter. We replaced him with a guy with literally 0 experience recruiting at our level and no history of winning battles against tougher competition. He may be great, but we replaced a coach with that experience (what his experience was previous doesn't matter because the difference is what he was when he was replaced) and got one without that experience. It would be like if HCPN left and we replaced him with another Coordinator. It wouldn't matter that HCPN came in as only being a Coordinator previously, just like the new guy and so there is no difference. That argument would be ludicrous. We would have lost our sitting HC and replaced him with an unproven Coordinator. The new guy COULD end up better, but we certainly shouldn't count on that right away.
I didn't bring up the age thing. drp1tt said (maybe he had other reasoning or just made a mistake) we got "younger" and we did not get "younger". This is another situation where people are saying I am being negative when I am actually dealing in facts. We got older (and in two spots significantly older) in each of our 3 replacements. Even the 10th guy isn't unusually young or an up and comer. So, if someone posts something that is just patently false and I respond that in fact that is completely wrong, I am "scraping for reasons to be negative"?
Ok, say the best move was retaining the one proven recruiter on our staff, while we got less experienced and/or less in demand (with Borberly) coaches for every other position, how is that clearly "Awesome"? How is that clearly getting better and anyone who disagrees is being negative?
I'm a fan and I understand being excited and biased for Pitt. I certainly am. If I wasn't and we were just completely realistic based on the past 30 years there would be no reason for any optimism. I certainly have hope. I certainly look past the abysmal results thus far. However, there has to be some modicum of reality and honesty, IMO. People like Stache do not maintain that. They lie and they distort the truth and call everyone else Nitters and think there is a conspiracy of posters posting for decades under multiple handles. The guy is a nut job and a liar. He just is.
I don't think the rankings are so precise as to say there is a meaningful difference between being ranked 29th or 40th, so it pretty much says the same thing to me. Miami is leaving us in the dust. Virginia Tech is easily out-recruiting us, and based on what I've read on 247 they have a strong chance at a top 10 or 15 class in 2019. UNC is also doing better than us, although not to a massive degree. You can point to the past and say Narduzzi is doing better than Chryst, but that is frankly pretty meaningless, because our divisional opponents are also doing better than they were.
Yeah, I meant that more in terms of relating it to our actual competition. The national ranking means next to nothing, but our in conference and in division competition is very important.
1. Why are you comparing to the poor recruiting under Chryst?
*Did you read the post I was replying to?
2. Neither class was good enough to compete for the ACC.
*Pitt finished 2nd in the Coastal with mostly Chryst's recuits 2 seasons ago. Finishing 2nd with more than a few opportunities to win Coastal isn't competing? Oh, I guess you don't see beating the eventual ACC (and National) champions as "competing" either? Ok, got it.
3. Comparing to 2016 avg doesn't work because we are talking about a comparison to our peers. If you rank by that average we would "jump" 4 teams from #46, but get "jumped" by another ranked below us in 2018. We'd end up #43. In 2016 we wouldn't have "jumped" anyone from #30, and would have been "jumped" by 3 to end up #33.
*Had you read/comprehended the post I was replying to, I don't think you wouldn't be so confused. But if think having a class ranked 40th, verses 35th, verses 30th makes any difference, great. The point is, it doesn't really matter. It's all in the same band but if you can land 25 or more recruits, your overall rating will be higher.
I look forward to your next "the sky is falling" post.
*Did you read the post I was replying to?
2. Neither class was good enough to compete for the ACC.
*Pitt finished 2nd in the Coastal with mostly Chryst's recuits 2 seasons ago. Finishing 2nd with more than a few opportunities to win Coastal isn't competing? Oh, I guess you don't see beating the eventual ACC (and National) champions as "competing" either? Ok, got it.
3. Comparing to 2016 avg doesn't work because we are talking about a comparison to our peers. If you rank by that average we would "jump" 4 teams from #46, but get "jumped" by another ranked below us in 2018. We'd end up #43. In 2016 we wouldn't have "jumped" anyone from #30, and would have been "jumped" by 3 to end up #33.
*Had you read/comprehended the post I was replying to, I don't think you wouldn't be so confused. But if think having a class ranked 40th, verses 35th, verses 30th makes any difference, great. The point is, it doesn't really matter. It's all in the same band but if you can land 25 or more recruits, your overall rating will be higher.
I look forward to your next "the sky is falling" post.
Last edited:
1. Completely right. The poster you quoted did mention Chryst.
2. Yeah, we finished tied for 2nd in the coastal and we just as easily could have lost a couple more games as we could have won another game or two. As it was, we finished tied for "2nd" with losses to both the teams we tied with. Hell of a 2nd place finish!!
3. The ratings are slightly higher, but the points/rating are actually accumulated on a sliding scale to better compensate for class size.
I never post "sky is falling" posts. I post honestly and based on my reasoning. We are a program who is one of the worst P5 programs in my lifetime. We just went 5-7, were the only P5 win for one school, and had to go to OT with a D1AA. Things are not great at Pitt, right now. They haven't been for 35 years. The sky fell a long time ago. I hope things get better. I hope the sky doesn't fall again.
So, you continue to post and be honest about things like our "2nd place finish" and I'll actually tell the whole story about how we "tied" for 2nd with two schools we lost to. The latter is not being negative. The former is being disingenuous, but not a lie like from posters like Stache.
Last edited:
Yet you leave continually leave little details of truths like Pitt beat the eventual ACC champ Clemson 2 years ago. I see a pot calling a kettle black all over your comments.
If recruiting was as easy as counting up your average rankings over a rolling four year average then awarding wins and losses- they might actually mean something after the top 5 or so. You need recruit to fill needs something both PC and DW struggled to do.
The reality you can recruit well in same positions like DW and PC did (to differing degrees) and have an incomplete roster. Compare that PN's overall recuiting where there's more depth in the classes than PC's and more diverse positional recruiting than both DW and PC.
The point is, you don't need to out recruit everyone in your division to beat everyone in your division.
Last edited:
That is a truth, but it isn't very relavent. It was a one of and then the next year we absolutely sucked. It didn't springboard us to anything of significance or accomplishment. It was great, but it isn't happening consistently and there is no reason to expect it will.
Who cares about DW or PC? DW had a few better national recruiting rankings and much more importantly out recruited all of his competition and some by huge margins, but he was an absolutely terrible coach. You have to have both. He is a loser. Of course you don't have to "out recruit everyone in your division to beat everyone in your division" but you better out recruit almost all of them. Otherwise, you are asking the Pitt staff to do something literally 0 other programs do, save a random year here or there. Wisconsin doesn't win a bunch of games against programs that out recruit them. Oklahoma State doesn't win a bunch of games against programs that out recruit them. Boise State doesn't win a bunch of games against programs that out recruit them. NO ONE wins a bunch of games against programs that out recruit them.
I gotta agree. It seems as though the only people who say that "stars aren't that important" are the fans of those teams that don't get the 4-5 star players.
Here's just one example of why most on this board think you are either a troll or just generally miserable. Take it for what it's worth.
There have still been position groups that Duzz has failed to successfully recruit (impact edge Rushers, WR ). The truth is when you are recruiting class in the 30s and 40s you are always going to have holes in your roster. Unless you can make up for recruiting misses/injuries/players leaving early with impact 5 star freshmen to plug those holes.
It makes it very difficult when to win the Coastal when Miami/VT/UNC all have significant talent advantages. Sure we could upset 2 of them in any given year, but we would also have to make sure to take care of business against GT/Cuse/UVA which are no layups for us. We need to strive to be on that VT/Unc level of consistent top 25 classes. Which I think is realistic ceiling for us recruiting wise and could be attained with a couple more winning season and continuity from the coaching staff.
As of right now the staff is probably a downgrade, although I think it's maybe splitting hairs one way or another.
But I do like the potential recruiting ability of some of these guys. You can't say they are established recruiters. That would be straight spin.
BUT, outside of Bates, you can say they at least have the characteristics that are common with good recruiters. And that's something the previous staff didn't have.
In essence, the previous staff was bad at recruiting. While there is no evidence to say the new staff is good, there's at least the hope that it can become good. And I'm sorry to say, that's probably as good as we are going to get at the moment.
But I do like the potential recruiting ability of some of these guys. You can't say they are established recruiters. That would be straight spin.
BUT, outside of Bates, you can say they at least have the characteristics that are common with good recruiters. And that's something the previous staff didn't have.
In essence, the previous staff was bad at recruiting. While there is no evidence to say the new staff is good, there's at least the hope that it can become good. And I'm sorry to say, that's probably as good as we are going to get at the moment.
Similar threads
